Our laws against crime are stricter than those in many other countries, but also looser than those in some. For example, drug crimes in some countries are punishable by death. In them, convicted drug criminals aren't in prison -- they are dead.

By the same token, in some other western nations, even murderers can expect to get out of prison relatively soon. They are more lenient than we are. In the US, much longer sentences are the norm, and being granted parole is very difficult. Murderers are rarely released, and drug criminals, while not facing death, are very often often repeat criminals, so they may end up receiving sentences, too.

As is so often the case with questions here, yours implies that the issues are all black and white. In reality, they are nuanced -- involving many shades of gray. People like you don't grasp complexities.

Mostly propaganda, as far as the freedom to act as one sees fit. When they settled it meant freedom of Religious belief without persecution,

the puritans escaping persecution for their faith from the established church in England.

At the founding, it was freedom from an oppressive King George who viewed the Colonies with a suspicious eye and proactively sought to keep the colonies under his control. Thus he stationed British Armies in the colonies which it tasked the people with feeding and providing a place for them to stay. (this is where we get the 3rd Article of our Constitution regarding quartering of troops.) Despite the colonies contributing largely to George's defeat of the French in the French Indian and other conflicts of the time. George could ill afford to lose the wealth of the colonies, not that they initially intended to separate, it was George's paranoia and an empty treasury that likely led to the abuses of the colonies, and this built a resentment from the people

It was not only the military abilities of the colonies but more so the vast commerce potential. Besides being nearly broke from all the wars they had fought Brittan had all but cut down every tree for shipbuilding. And had been importing the materials from the Colonies to maintain naval superiority. So at the time of the Founding, it was freedom to be heard by one's government.and to have a say in the way the people lived. (See the colonies letter to King George for a more detailed description of the grievances of the Colonies. But the king ignored this letter like all the others, as did parliament. So this is where we have the saying no taxation without representation. And is ultimately why we settled on a Republican form of Government. (Does not mean republican party).But if one was to observe today our level of freedom, by comparison to the time of the founding, we would have to apologize to the likes of Benjamin Franklin.h when asked what type of government we had been given at the time they wrote our constitution replied: A Republic if you can keep it." A Republic is the people governing themselves and their communities, with limited input from the central Government (The Fed) and even the State. The Fed is intended to be limited in power domestically, except in times of outside threat of foreign invasion. Internally during a revolt, to mobilize the militias of the several States to aid Governors who fear a Coup. Thus protection from enemies foreign and domestic. But mostly we as people are supposed to be free to alter or abolish a government which no longer works for the people. The only problem is that we have allowed our government to "Dumb us down" To the point,we do not know how to exercise our rights to change our government. We have allowed special interest groups, (Such as the B.A.R. Association to hijack our law, and make us dependant upon Counsel to move our Courts.) We have allowed our legislative branch to abrogate its legislative powers (Given by us) to the Executive Branch which now not only enforces the law but makes the law, as well in the form of Agency regulations, made by Agencies rather than the elected body. We have further allowed the Agencies to hold Unconstitutional Courts in the form of administrative Hearings. We have allowed our courts, to interpret the Constitution as an open season on oppressing the people, by granting unconstitutional immunities to government employees, (who think it is their granted authority which allows them to regulate us even in our homes.) Most egregiously have allowed our Courts to deny us our right to judge and be judged by our peers in open Court, first by excessive incarceration of accused individuals (who have yet to be found guilty) and by making bail in most cases unattainable for indigent persons who would lose everything if they were to remain incarcerated until a trial could be held. Yet the offer of a plea bargain allows the accused to go home (a criminal without full rights) and "Saves the taxpayers money". But if that same individual goes to trial, and is found guilty, the penalties for fighting the charges are exacerbated to the point of making the trial a risk for the average person. Especially given the fact that without a jurist doctorate the average individual has no earthly idea of how to prove his innocence, and is forced to rely on the B.A.R. cardholders of the Court Judge, Prosecutor, and his Attorney to hash out his guilt or innocence in the foreign language of legalese.

And in the instances of a civil trial say against the Government, we have allowed the Courts to ignore the seventh Article promise of Jury trials, where now the Court decides if the case should go to trial before it is even argued. Based upon how well written the Complaint is. The court claiming that IT gets to decide the LAW, and the JURY gets to decide the FACTS. And if the JUDGE finds no BASIS IN LAW, no jury will ever hear your case. And this completely does away with JURY NULLIFICATION, a major check on government authority that the people are supposed to possess. So whatever your definition of freedom is today, it is not born in a free Republic, it is not founded in a Democracy, And if you dream it We can Regulate it, if you don't agree that's okay your in the minority, and the minority vote doesn't matter until election time, and that's when the elected officials put on display their voting records. (most of them showing how tough on crime they were as prosecutors, or attorney's whose first oath is to the Courts. And now they wish to serve in the legislature. A very unconstitutional oversight, that our government ignores. As one cannot serve in two branches of Government.But what do I know Im,not a lawyer, and you need a lawyer to navigate the bureaucratic State. You are as free as you can afford to pay for. Unless Overwhelming public sentiment has determined you guilty and then there is no way to escape the unconstitutional government-controlled press.

Log in to reply to the answers

What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.

That it drugs are things, and the only reason they are stigmatized is because the government outlawed them. If a person wishes to ingest something that is their business, not the governments place to say or outlaw The consequences are also theirs. Such as Drinking and driving, if they kill someone